Talk:David Reimer: Difference between revisions
To Alteripse |
m A link lacked a bracket |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
In the spirit of [[wiki]], we discuss changes here and then make the agreed changes on the life article. Then we fight about the implementation of the changes. It seems to me that maybe, we should workout all of the details on a [[David Reimer/Temp | temp-page], which will also have its own [[Talk:David Reimer/Temp | talk-page]]. |
In the spirit of [[wiki]], we discuss changes here and then make the agreed changes on the life article. Then we fight about the implementation of the changes. It seems to me that maybe, we should workout all of the details on a [[David Reimer/Temp | temp-page ]], which will also have its own [[Talk:David Reimer/Temp | talk-page]]. |
||
* [[David Reimer/Temp]] |
* [[David Reimer/Temp]] |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
==DanP== |
==DanP== |
||
I am amazed that you consider removal of the word "accidental" from the phrase "penis was destroyed in a circumcision accident" as making it "NPOV." Do you think the doctor intended to destroy the penis? Then what POV were you removing? [[User:Alteripse|alteripse]] 00:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
I am amazed that you consider removal of the word "accidental" from the phrase "penis was destroyed in a circumcision accident" as making it "NPOV." Do you think the doctor intended to destroy the penis? Then what POV were you removing? [[User:Alteripse|alteripse]] 00:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 02:04, 11 February 2005
Archive 1 --
Avoiding conflict
In the spirit of wiki, we discuss changes here and then make the agreed changes on the life article. Then we fight about the implementation of the changes. It seems to me that maybe, we should workout all of the details on a temp-page , which will also have its own talk-page.
--
Ŭalabio 06:46, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
DanP
I am amazed that you consider removal of the word "accidental" from the phrase "penis was destroyed in a circumcision accident" as making it "NPOV." Do you think the doctor intended to destroy the penis? Then what POV were you removing? alteripse 00:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, it was the word "accident". In its prior usage, the adjective "circumcision" suggests that the attempt to remove "just some" of his penis was accidental. Clearly that part was deliberate. Nobody says "a woman died after a rape accident". The last two words are incompatible. Either way, we shouldn't try to read the mind of the person being described, or use a POV to describe what happened. All we can say factually is that it was destroyed during a circumcision, instead of using some euphemism. DanP 00:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The POV that you removed was that the doctor did not set out to destroy the penis, just the foreskin. You consider that unwarranted speculation? You think he intended to destroy the whole penis? Do you understand just how bizarre you are? alteripse 01:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- But that's not how the sentence was constructed! While you might infer a meaning different than the one in the literal words, there is no reason not to clarify the sentence. Just as you say, leaving out the word "accident" still leaves the impression to the reader that destruction of the remainder of the penis was not intended. Since you're adamant that the intentions be explicit, I changed it to "inadvertent" which does not have the connotation of bad luck, and made it modify "destruction" and not "circumcision". I hope that clarifies the meaning for both of us. DanP 01:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)